The Truth about Sexism
The truth about sexism is that no one wants to acknowledge that it exists beyond a cursory level. It’s like anti-Semitism in Europe, an acceptable wrong. My guy friends think I’m overly sensitive. I think that they’re overly ignorant. They and half the women I know like to think we live in a world where the playing field is level. And living in San Francisco, a fairly progressive, liberal city, you sometimes forget. But every once in awhile, you look up and count the number of male partners in your firm. You take a look at your boyfriend’s pay. You start to realize something is askew.
And occasionally, a female candidate runs for the presidency and everything becomes crystal clear. Sure, Hillary is rough around edges. She’s not your typical “likable” female. But the amount of sexist remarks floating through our “respected” media makes you wonder what it was like back in the 40’s. These days I’m fairly resigned to the fact that Hillary isn’t going to win. What’s harder to stomach is the deafening silence that Marie Cocco calls out in her article, “Clinton Campaign Brought Sexism Out of Hiding. Racism is wrong. Sexism is wrong. I just don’t understand why it’s so hard for my Obama leaning friends to admit this. It’s as if they feel that remotely admitting that sexism somehow played a small part in the election completely negates Obama’s candidacy. What they don’t realize that their refusal to acknowledge the double standard does more harm than good; it further divides a party that is already divided. It’s dismissive of the other Democratic half and it’s going to give McCain more votes in the fall. It’s time to heal the party and it starts with listening and not being dismissive of the concerns of Clinton supporters. If not, don’t be surprised when come fall Obama ends up sleeping on the couch.
Life post-Hillary and Greenery
So now that the Democratic Primary is coming to a slow, painful end, many friends have asked me how shall I fill the virtual pages of my blog. To that I remark with how much they underestimate the amount of neural litter that clogs the pathways of my overly neurotic mind. Keeping true to the title of the blog I will continue to follow happenings of presidential politics, but will also explore new subjects including technology, media, greenery (climate crisis), Myers Briggs and the economy.
My latest pet project has been writing for a new Green site that my company is launching – Halogen Guides Greener. It’s a website devoted to helping individuals live Greener lives. The idea behind the site is that Green is no longer a social invention of the liberal left. We all are coming to grips with the reality that we are facing a serious climate crisis and although our lives appear seemingly normal with the endless sea of SUVs on our streets, we are starting to realize that the little changes in our lives matter. We, as humans, too often discount our long term affects on the our environment caused by our single minded myopia. But it can’t get more tangible than the snows disappearing from Mt. Kilimanjaro or the rising prices of our depleted fossil fuels.
Halogen Guides Greener is a resource to raise our awareness of these issues and a guide to the small but impactful changes in our lives that can help us reduce our carbon imprint. It’s an imperfect product. As with all things in life, my concept of Greener hasn’t necessarily meshed with those of others in the company. But to that end, I’d really like to hear from the those of you reading what stories and resources would pique your interest. What would you like to know about Green issues and what topics would help you be Greener?
We need your HELP!
Red Pill Politics surpasses 2000 hits
Due the power of linking and the intrigue in MBTI, Red Pill Politics ushers in its second thousand hits! We also hit another milestone by making it to the front page of user voted articles on RealClearPolitics.com.
Top Posts of the Past 30 days
Bittergate Takes the Cake
Not the First Time Obama has been Patronizing on Class
Obama is a good guy. I get it. This doesn’t mean that he won’t have the occasional “gaffe” (code word for fairly offensive remark). But on the topic of class, Obama, his campaign and his supporters have been offensive before. I’ve written about this in an earlier post, The Workings of Class. Back then no one really paid any attention to his implied classist statements because they weren’t as clear cut as:
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
As with all things, we, as Americans, need things spelled out for us.
To be fair to Obama, there was probably something to his tours in small towns in Pennsylvania that gave birth to such remarks and like everything he says, there is a kernel of truth. Some one or some group of people probably said something outlandish about Mexicans invading the workforce or there were one too many intense debates about gun control. But his statements and the context in which they were made are so representative of the growing divide between classes in this country.
The Intellectual Elite Think They Know It All
The intellectual elite think that they are smarter than the average Joe. And they treat them that way on everything from economics (Read Brook’s latest here: Obama: A Speech about Nothing) to political commentary to their antipathy towards working class issues. Obama can go from rural Ohio to Pennsylvania,
give his hypocritical stump speech on NAFTA (read: pretends like he doesn’t agree with free trade agreements. Read more here) and then fly back to SF, toss back glasses of Syrah with his enlightened supporters and speak about the ignorant folks elsewhere. All of this is insufferable, patronizing, condescending and painfully annoying.
Class, not Race is the Big Divider
For those of you who are still unaware, it’s class, not race which is causing the big divide in the current Democratic race. And the working class have something legitimate to say even if it’s something idealistic, young Obama supporters don’t want to hear. It goes a little something like this:
1. We do not trust your 2 years of national experience with the issues we cannot afford to get wrong: healthcare, education and the economy.
2. We believe Hillary is more committed and has the experience to carry through reform around the issues nearest and dearest to us given the fact that Bill did a pretty decent job of sustaining a decade of growth and prosperity, while investing in social programs like the HOPE credit for our college going kids and welfare reform for the working poor.
3. We find your pie-in-the-sky rhetoric completely discordant with the realities of our 9pm to 6am lives.
This is not to say that Obama can’t win over the working classes. It’s just to say that he won’t by playing into stereotypes that propagate classism.
Which MBTI Type would make the Best President?
Note: Please take this with a grain of salt. I’m kidding, but not really. 
Given the surprising interest in Hillary INTJ, Obama ENTP, I wanted to pander to the masses and expand on the initial post.
What does MBTI say about who should be our next president?
Unfortunately, MBTI says very little. Your Myers-Briggs preferences are just that – preferences. Therefore, a “strong” situation like work or being the President of the United States would override the natural tendencies 
that you tend to display in your personal life. For example, you may be a Perceiver, which means you don’t necessarily like the closure that comes with deadlines. You enjoy leaving your options open, and the rush of adrenaline right before a project due date is exactly the energy boost you need to get over the hump. But since work rewards those who are less spontaneous and more methodical with meeting deadlines, you organize and plan away although you avoid this in your personal life. The pressure of being president will force Intuitives (Ns) who are more concept focused to fixate on details. The same pressure will force Sensory folks (Ss) to bring “out of the box” solutions to the table when the situation demands it
But, Wendy. What do you really think?
If I were to handpick the president him/herself based upon MBTI, the only true filter that I would apply would be the N/S dimension. I’d pick an N over an S any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Sorry, S friends, but you already know that I’m an N snob. 
Here’s why. George Bush = ESTJ. Need I say more…
In short, you can find a smart S, but you can’t find a dumb N. And yes, I know intelligence can be defined by multiple parameters, but I’m now speaking of pure systemic logic – the kind of intelligence measured by IQ tests. It’s not that Ss aren’t smart; I’m dating an ESTP who smoked me on the GMATs with a 99.8 percentile score. But studies have shown that there are correlations between intelligence and MBTI types.
Exhibit A
So what does this table say? It essentially states that Ns are overrepresented in a random sample of gifted students as compared to a normative group. In laments terms, Ns are brighter than the average bear. (A consolation prize for Ss: Ss are cooler than the average bear).
Why are Ns smarter?
I tend to use this analogy. Raw intelligence is like your Pentium Processor. Different people have varying processing speeds, which speak to how quickly your synapses fire. Your MBTI type is like the software that runs on your computer – it speaks to sophistication and efficiency. Invisible Man was the lamest movie, but
it did have a good scene that I think that helps to explain the key difference between an N vs. an S. In the scene, the scientist attempts to explain why his colleague is more gifted. He says of himself that to get to D he has to go from step A to B to C to D. On the other hand, his colleague can go from A to D.
At the core of this is pattern recognition. In Ns, the dominant or axillary form is either Introverted Intuition or Extroverted Intuition. So how does this play out in our brains? It goes something like this. My economics professor introduces the concept of supply and demand and the point of equilibrium. In my head, I automatically make the association between this point of equilibrium with something I learned in chemistry class – the equilibrium of molecules when a gas is released in a tank. This image of gas molecules floating through the tank until they are totally diffused throughout flashes in my head. I then take this gas concept that I’ve already internalized and apply it to the current concept of supply and demand. This is obviously more efficient than going back and digesting the idea of equilibrium from scratch. My brain does this all the time with everything that comes into it – association after association in one warped network of connected concepts.
The difference between Hillary and Obama
…is the difference between an IN and an EN. INs take things to another level of depth and understanding when compared to ENs. Why? Because INs are always in their head thinking things over and over and over until they reach a good equilibrium with the topic. This essentially is the difference that you see between Hillary’s depth of knowledge on certain topics (like healthcare, education, etc.) vs. Obama’s general grasp of the concept. It’s as if he made the association between the gas equilibrium and supply and demand equilibrium, but didn’t go beyond that. But does it really matter that Obama is an EN vs. an IN? Yes and no. Yes, in the fact that he understands concepts with less depth, but no because ENs come with sizable talents lacking in INs – namely the awe inspiring leadership skills that Obama has demonstrated. And one could argue that those skills are more critical to the presidency.
The difference between Hillary & Obama vs. McCain
People have speculated that McCain is an ESTP. All and all I wouldn’t elect a president who was an S unless he was the actual general leading us in war a la George Washington who was rumored to be an ISTJ – the stalwart of duty. How can I say this nicely? Ss just don’t get it sometimes. They get the details without understanding the underlying principle.
Detail: “Well functioning market systems.” Concept: “Well functioning market systems to create economic and social stability” The difference? McCain focuses on “fixing the markets.” Obama and Hillary focus on fixing the markets insomuch that they help with the prosperity and stability of our democratic society.
So in short, vote for an N, not an S.
Hillary and the Affair
Before Friday, I would have never written a post about Hillary and Bill’s marriage. It seems invasive – like I of all people have the brazen right to pry into someone’s personal life and delve into their soul without the least bit of concern for their privacy. But if Maureen Dowd can arrogantly talk as if she knows the intimate details behind the lives of Bill and Hillary, apparently, I can too. (She’s so obnoxious.)
I was at the dentist office on Friday, listening to an NPR clip as the hygienist scraped away. It was another polling piece where Pennsylvania voters voiced their opinions on the upcoming primary. I was struck by the number of people who spoke about Hillary and how they couldn’t support her because of the way she handled herself during the Lewinsky affair. Lovely. Here’s to sticking to the issues, people.
An Interview for Commander in Chief
So what do I think Bill’s affair says about Hillary’s capabilities as commander in chief? I think very little.
Unlike many of my friends, I’m not looking for the second coming of Jesus. I’m looking for a bright, capable candidate who will fix the mess that we’re in and so my approach has never been to dissect the personal lives of Hillary and Obama. Obama’s crazy pastor is Obama’s crazy pastor. Do his policies or the way he’s conducted his campaign reflect the anti-American, racially polarizing remarks of his pastor? Nope. Do Bill’s infidelities affect Hillary’s campaign and her policies? Apparently yes, but only in the minds and the perceptions of the people judging her.
I wonder how many of us would pass our own interviews if our personal lives were on the chopping block to be scrutinized. 
Well, I guess 50% would fail right off the bat for giving up on our marriages. Another 16% would be considered weak for staying in a marriage once an affair has taken place. And I wonder just how many partners at my ex-firm would be fired for messing around with their assistants.
I’m just very curious as to why people have this obsession with idealizing their leaders. I mean, isn’t it obvious that it’s very stupid idea? Whose perfect? MLK was a very well known philanderer as a church pastor no less. Does this take away from the great things that he accomplished as a public figure pushing for civil rights legislation and inspiring a generation of new activists?
Hillary and the American Ideal
Bill cheats and Hillary gets blamed. I love the warped minds of Americans. At the core of it is this idea of the American ideal. You know what I’m talking about. It’s the stuff American Idol is made of. Marriage is made of fairy dust and Kathering McPhee can’t possibly not like hanging out with her parents. That’s so non-Apple pie of her.
I don’t know what Hillary and Bill’s marriage is like. I have a feeling it’s more than a calculated bond for political convenience. Hillary’s an INTJ; Bill’s an ENFP – they’re a natural Myers-Briggs pair. I’m completely and utterly speculating at this point, but unlike some NY Times columnist at least I have the humility to admit this. INTJs and ENFPs are mind-mates. This is pretty evident in Bill and Hillary’s marriage. She’s an incredibly bright and knowledgeable woman and that’s a rare commodity for a bright and knowledgeable man. He trusted her enough to head up education reform in Arkansas and health care as our first lady. A more machismo driven man would have had his wife stand there and look pretty as many have done in the past and still do in the present (ahem…McCain).
I don’t know what life is like in the Clinton household, but I think it could go a little something like this:
Bill and Hillary at Dinner
Bill: Hi babe. I had a great day today. We just expanded offices to Uganda. That’s one more procurement partner driving up the scale advantages for buying retroviral medication for AIDS patients. More partners means cheaper medication and more people getting the medication they need.
Hillary: That’s cool, honey. Do you think we could do something similar in the US as it pertains to health care? Maybe put together a plan to include everyone. We can then use the increased scale to drive down the cost of the plan.
Bill: Yeah, should work. Let’s hope the Republicans and lobbyists don’t spend millions of dollars fooling Americans that a collective plan will somehow drive down the quality of healthcare like they did last time.
Hillary: True. [pause] Chelsea got a question from an obnoxious supporter about the whole Lewinsky thing today.
Bill: [pause...gulp] Yeah, I suck. I’m sorry that I put you and Chelsea through all that public humiliation. As an INTJ, you’re an intensely private person and having your personal affairs talked about at dinner tables and on blogs must kill you.
Hillary: You better be sorry. [glare] And you do suck. But you’re a decent man, even with all your obvious flaws. And I wish that people would understand that we may not be apple pie, but we’re about as real and American as it gets with all of our inherent flaws, contradictions, ideals and striving for something better…
Other Related Content
It’s not Her. It’s that Marriage, Newsweek
For Clintons, Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives, NY Times
Republicans and the Games they Play on Education
As I was submitting my post to RealClearPolitics.com this morning, I ran across this beauty of an article.
A Bad Education Equals A Good Democrat
How do you turn someone into a lifelong Democrat? Give him a public school education.
Whenever I wrote about public schools in my job as an op-ed columnist for the NY Post, I would get letters stating that the above was the Democrats’ “secret weapon” for maintaining power. Since I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, I viewed such letters as overwrought. Besides, you don’t need to be conspiratorial when you’re achieving the same ends in broad daylight.
A report issued by America’s Promise Alliance, a non-profit group dedicated to improving children’s lives, states that seventeen of the nation’s fifty largest cities had graduation rates below 50%. “When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it’s more than a problem, it’s a catastrophe,” said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.
It’s a catastrophe some forty years in the making, Mr. Powell–and it comes courtesy of the Democratic party and its undying allegiance to public school unions. Read more here…
Oh, the games Republicans play, while our kids remain neglected. I promptly wrote Arnold Ahlert this (Here’s his email if you want to spam him: atahlert@comcast.net):
That’s a very cute story that you wrote on Political Maven. But it’s very much like a Republican to have such a market purist view that over simplifies the issue by a factor of 100. Democrats have traditionally been pro-union. Agreed. But both Democratic national candidates, Obama and Clinton, are standing up for charter schools and early childhood prevention, which are our best chances to significantly reform the public education system in the country. I find this especially ironic given the fact that Clinton during her work in Arkansas enforced better teacher qualification and credentialing, while McCain has done…what? Please remind me of what he’s done…
But let’s look at the real culprit of the decline of the public school system, especially in California – Proposition 13 enacted under Reagan that capped property taxes and therefore drained the system of much needed funding. Back in the 1960’s, California schools were ranked near the top and are now 48th in the country. Want to see a fun correlation chart? Check out public funding (x-axis) and student achievement (y-axis).
Instead of blaming Democrats for the mess we’re in, it would be nice to see a journalist seriously dive into the issues. In lieu of that, I’d just like you to stick to what you know, which apparently isn’t education.
-Wendy N.
Republicans and their school voucher BS. Yes, school vouchers are fine, but they definitely are not a well-thought out plan to overhaul our school system needs. In California, each student receives $9,009. A quick scan of the 30 something Oakland private schools out there places full-day tuition at about $12,000 – that’s roughly 30% more than what a low-income Oakland parent can afford for each child. We also haven’t touched on the number of private schools that would have to be built out of the blue to accommodate the 48,906 students in the 142 schools in Oakland Unified School District.
Honestly, it would be nice if instead of this back and forth, superficial coverage, we could get some smart journalists to “be the change” they seek. The irony is not lost on Hillary supporters.
The Curtain Call (for women)
Some men will never understand…and some women may never either.
I’ve spent the last week avoiding Brook’s The Long Defeat. I didn’t need to open the NY Times Op-ed piece to know that without Florida and Michigan re-votes, I’m starting to see the only chance to elect a female president to the White House in my life time disappear into smoke. It’s disheartening…
Dual consciousness and the Veil
I remember reading Souls of Black Folk back in a post-reconstruction history class at Berkeley. W.E.B Dubois’ account of the “veil” and “dual consciousness” immediately struck a chord with me.
Then it dawned upon me with a certain suddenness that I was different from the others; or like, mayhap, in heart and life and longing, but shut out from their world by a vast veil. I had thereafter no desire to tear down that veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt, and lived above it in a region of blue sky and great wandering shadows. That sky was bluest when I could beat my mates at examination-time, or beat them at a foot-race, or even beat their stringy heads. Alas, with the years all this fine contempt began to fade; for the worlds I longed for, and all their dazzling opportunities, were theirs, not mine.
I had always wondered if his account would have been different if he had been a women. Would dual consciousness have become tri-consciousness? Would the veil have morphed into hard, impenetrable glass? Regardless, he had spoken to my soul in a way a show, a movie or no other modern day medium ever had. Reading that book, in some small part affirmed my existence as a poor, Vietnamese-American girl and made me feel that there was someone out there that understood.
Three layers of the veil
I don’t know how to extract race, gender, class from my being. I just know that if Hillary won, I would feel that same sense of affirmation – that the things that I hold core to who I am fundamentally as a person…independence, competence, intelligence, work ethic, vitality, courage, struggle (as a woman)…would be affirmed.
My 20-something guy friends don’t get this. The idea of voting for Hillary because she’s a woman seems “uninspiring.” I just think/hope that this understanding will come with time. Like when they have a daughter and realize that however smart, talented this little girl is she will grow up being judged mostly by her looks. That her modern day role models are the likes of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. That she could be as talented as the Williams sisters, but be dismissed by her non-Kornikova like beauty. And then I think my guy friends will start to understand what it means to see a woman elected to the presidency.
Growing up Asian American, I think the need for representation is sometimes felt more acutely. You’re American, but nothing around you affirms that. TV, movies, books, magazines…your presence is unknown and relatively inconsequential when it pertains to American culture. Hillary represents more to some women than just a competent candidate and that hope should be respected. It should be respected as much as the hope that African Americans have for seeing a Black president. It shouldn’t be looked at with disdain by those so ready to prove their gender neutral stance: “I’m not voting for her just because she’s a woman.”
I would not be voting for Hillary if I didn’t think she was the best candidate
I am a peaceful person (okay, not really), but boy, I have felt the urge to punch some people in the neck after they’ve given me that look. You know the look. The “oh, you’re voting for her b/c she’s a woman and you’re a women so therefore you must not be rational enough to look beyond that.” That look. That look is maddening. Because 60% (who am I kidding…90%) of the times, I feel like I better understand the issues, have better articulated views and have more thoroughly researched candidates’ policies.
And I want to make a point. And I know that I will get flack for this, but I do not believe that if any woman was running with less than 2 years of national experience, she would garner the same level of support that Obama has – regardless of great rhetorical flourishes and the like. It’s the ultimate catch 22. Hillary is being faulted for being of the “establishment,” yet without years and years of the Washington grind, she wouldn’t have passed the sniff test for competency. Especially strange since she has proven that she is not a part of the establishment in many ways by departing from traditional democratic views like in the case of charter schools, enforcing stricter rules against teacher unions and crossing party lines in her time in the Senate to pass needed legislation. She worked with Orin Hatch to get the S-CHIP bill for healthcare passed for heaven’s sake.
The point that I’m trying to make is Hillary is by no means an affirmative action case, and let’s acknowledge the double standard. Because there is one…even if it isn’t as clear as black and white.
Other Related Content
Woman and Clinton: Damned if they vote, damned if they don’t?
Red Pill Politics surpasses 1000 hits
Who knew enough friends and internet randoms would find their way on to Red Pill Politics to drag it across the 1,000 hit mark. To give you a sense of how insignificant this milestone is, let me just mention that Facebook achieves the same amount of hits in about 3.98 seconds. I did the math. But life is about celebrating the small stuff, so let’s take a trip down memory lane.
Top 5 Posts
| Obama as a Religion | 68 |  |
| The Red Phone | 55 | |
| Race and Politics: the Overused Divide | 44 | |
| Obama is no Steve Jobs | 41 | |
| The Workings of Class | 39 | |
The Tricks of Traffic
Thanks for all the support!
9 comments